Could we be in for a Record Season?
- Thread starter twosevenkid
- Start date
Too early for predictions, but at this point I will be kinda miffed if we don't crack 100 wins (for the first time since 1946). Just playing the rest of the season at last year's modest clip (.574) gets us to 98.7 wins.
In this day and age, with the third best record in the AL, those Brewers would have been a wild card team.
I do long for four-division baseball again, with the wild card it would be fascinating and we'd see a better variety of opponents.
Last year we started 10-8, played .576 over the last 144 with a ton of injuries.
If we play .500 ball the rest of this year, we finish with 88 wins. If we play .576 ball (matching last year) we finish with 99 wins. I'd say 100 is a reasonable projection.
If we play .500 ball the rest of this year, we finish with 88 wins. If we play .576 ball (matching last year) we finish with 99 wins. I'd say 100 is a reasonable projection.
First off
That made me laugh and I'm sure it flew over a few people's heads
I believe this current Jays team isn't as good at 2015 or 2016 versions
They'll be pesky for sure, but I think they are a .500 team at best
Also, I fear posting in this thread will then have the Sox go 2-16 over the next 18, so they better win tonight
I'm agnostic about that, but strongly support any move that would kick the Astros back to the NL where they belong.
In defense of their pitching staff...Higuera was probably the best pitcher between 1986-1988 in the AL not named Clemens, including actually leading in bWAR in 1986. Had two more good (albeit injury shortened) seasons in 1989-90, before completely falling off due to back and shoulder injuries.
And for some reason I thought they had a young Sheffield in 1987, but he didn't come up until 88. Was later traded for 3 of their "cogs" on their mediocre teams in the mid 90's (Jose Valentin, Matt Mieske, and Ricky Bo-nes), before turning into a star in the NL with the Padres, Marlins, Dodgers, etc...
I always wondered if others felt as strongly about this as I do.
Baseball really brings out the paleo-conservative in me sometimes. This is just unnatural.
Obviously--I mean, we are talking about the natural order of things, yes?
It's only to enjoy the current run! remember when people wondered when we would score a run after those early games, now its just gotten silly (in a good way!). Of course it wont last, but damn, X has been out for a large portion of this run, JD Martinez looks like hes on the way up, I think Devers is still struggling to find consistency, so I dont feel like its outrageously "Over par" performance, they're just getting great production from a lot of places and riding the wave.
Of course you have to feel nervous that the only ending for these kinds of great runs is a stretch of disappointment (imagine those teams like the 98 Mariners), but lets bank as many wins as we can and see how things look later! It would be great to see 100 wins somehow, even though it has no real bearing (outside of any HFA concerns)
If theres one glaring weakness for me, its the bullpen. Yes, I know stats wise they are doing great, but theyve had a lot of easy games, and I am not sure I trust ANYONE in the pen outside of Kimbrel and even he had some tough times in the playoffs last year. When it gets to October in those sphincter twitching games against teams like the Astros, I don't know if I would feel confident AT ALL in those close bullpen games, and that seems weird given the current run but I can't shake the feeling that they will need to find a top tier setup man / alternative closer when it gets to the business end of the season.
but damn, they are playing with a lot of attitude now, having great fun, and are fun to watch, whatever the reason its a hell of a ride to enjoy right now, hopefully it will earn them some slack when the inevitable slumps and struggles come.
Of course you have to feel nervous that the only ending for these kinds of great runs is a stretch of disappointment (imagine those teams like the 98 Mariners), but lets bank as many wins as we can and see how things look later! It would be great to see 100 wins somehow, even though it has no real bearing (outside of any HFA concerns)
If theres one glaring weakness for me, its the bullpen. Yes, I know stats wise they are doing great, but theyve had a lot of easy games, and I am not sure I trust ANYONE in the pen outside of Kimbrel and even he had some tough times in the playoffs last year. When it gets to October in those sphincter twitching games against teams like the Astros, I don't know if I would feel confident AT ALL in those close bullpen games, and that seems weird given the current run but I can't shake the feeling that they will need to find a top tier setup man / alternative closer when it gets to the business end of the season.
but damn, they are playing with a lot of attitude now, having great fun, and are fun to watch, whatever the reason its a hell of a ride to enjoy right now, hopefully it will earn them some slack when the inevitable slumps and struggles come.
I'm not sure I have language for describing my understanding of the Yankees' place in the cosmic order of things that is appropriate for the main board.
Suffice to say, I didn't even realize their symbol was an N and a Y until I was like 12 years old, and I figured it out from looking at a Mets cap. It always was and will be just the baseball swastika.
That was a danger of small samples, as that +67 for the Tigers was really built off of 4 games, a 20-4 thrashing of Oakland, followed by a 20-3 thrashing of Seattle 4 days later, and two consecutive games against the Twins (17-1 and 16-5) (+60 in those 4 games). Amazing that that that team had a nearly identical Pythag on the season...helped that they had a ton of blowouts the other way too. Probably one of the widest spreads I've seen of a season, looking at the red and green bars on b-ref. https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/DET/1993.shtml
And for an 85-77 team, they were fun to play as on Ken Griffey Baseball.
edit: to fix improper Seattle duplication
And for an 85-77 team, they were fun to play as on Ken Griffey Baseball.
edit: to fix improper Seattle duplication
Those 1993 Tigers were a weird team. They only finished 85-77, 3rd place in the AL East, outscoring opponents 899-837.
Their early run differential was mostly due to some early season pummelings: they won 20-4 over Oakland in the 7th game of the season, then beat Seattle 20-3 in the 10th game. That's a sweet 40-7 run differential in 2 games. Without those two, their run differential on the season drops to 859-830.
But they weren't done-- in games 15 to 17, they slaughtered the Twins 12-4, 17-1, and 16-5. Combined with the other two blowouts, in those 5 games their run differential was 85-17. Without those 5 early season routs, they were actually outscored on the season 814-820.
They started 2-4, then won 11 out of 12.
They were 18 games over .500 at 43-25 on June 20, then 2 days later started a 10-game losing streak. They broke the streak with a 10-inning win over Texas, then lost 3 more in a row. They then won 6 out of 10, then lost 6 more in a row, part of a 10-29 stretch that wrecked their season.
Old guys Gibson, Whitaker and Trammel were still good hitters, Big Cecil hit 30 bombs and Mickey Tettleton hit 32. Travis Fryman had a 133 OPS+, and somehow Chad Kreuter had a 130, as did and supersub Tony Phillips. But Rob Deer was lousy and Milt Cuyler was worse, with a 59 OPS+.
Their pitching was bad, but benefitted from all the runs scored. Mike Moore and Bill Gullickson both went 13-9, but had ERAs of 5.22 and 5.37.
In June and July, they went 23-34 with an abysmal team ERA well over 5, allowing 82 HRs in 57 games.
Weird team having a weird season.
Their early run differential was mostly due to some early season pummelings: they won 20-4 over Oakland in the 7th game of the season, then beat Seattle 20-3 in the 10th game. That's a sweet 40-7 run differential in 2 games. Without those two, their run differential on the season drops to 859-830.
But they weren't done-- in games 15 to 17, they slaughtered the Twins 12-4, 17-1, and 16-5. Combined with the other two blowouts, in those 5 games their run differential was 85-17. Without those 5 early season routs, they were actually outscored on the season 814-820.
They started 2-4, then won 11 out of 12.
They were 18 games over .500 at 43-25 on June 20, then 2 days later started a 10-game losing streak. They broke the streak with a 10-inning win over Texas, then lost 3 more in a row. They then won 6 out of 10, then lost 6 more in a row, part of a 10-29 stretch that wrecked their season.
Old guys Gibson, Whitaker and Trammel were still good hitters, Big Cecil hit 30 bombs and Mickey Tettleton hit 32. Travis Fryman had a 133 OPS+, and somehow Chad Kreuter had a 130, as did and supersub Tony Phillips. But Rob Deer was lousy and Milt Cuyler was worse, with a 59 OPS+.
Their pitching was bad, but benefitted from all the runs scored. Mike Moore and Bill Gullickson both went 13-9, but had ERAs of 5.22 and 5.37.
In June and July, they went 23-34 with an abysmal team ERA well over 5, allowing 82 HRs in 57 games.
Weird team having a weird season.
I think this is my favorite stat so far...
They didn't hit ONE SINGLE GRAND SLAM last year. Amazing. Talk about a great study of regression.
This team was going to hit better than last year by default, 2017 is going to be a study of how 15 outlier events all happen at the same time.
The fact they added a top 5 hitter in baseball and a 21 year old freak of nature is just icing.
They may be loading the bases just as often, but hitting HRs this year.
Added bonus.... HRs eliminate the chance of mystifying baserunning.
People comparing seasons may be off base if this season - as many people think - will be outliers with tanking teams. There only have been three seasons since 1900 when baseball had two teams with below a .300 winning percentage (1909, 1911, and 1939), and right now baseball has four plus the Os at .300 (who aren't tanking but just may be a poorly constructed team).
If the tanking teams continue to be this bad, records will be in jeopardy.
If the tanking teams continue to be this bad, records will be in jeopardy.
Posted this in the game thread but the RS current differential - +70 - is higher than the total runs scored for 8 teams. Amazing.
They could go .500 for the rest of the season and be sitting at 88-89 wins. Crazy, crazy start to this season.
This is a polite version of a certain Earl Weaver quote. "On the home run, nothing can go wrong."
To WBCD:
Did you compare number of teams below .300 on April 20? Or as of the end ofvthe season?
Because Small Sample Sizes and all that really matter.
Did you compare number of teams below .300 on April 20? Or as of the end ofvthe season?
Because Small Sample Sizes and all that really matter.
end of season and I understand about SSS. We'll see how the season plays out but I don't think this many teams have ever not tried to win before. Could be wrong though.
Yeah, it's highly unlikely even a "tanking" team can maintain a sub .300 winning percentage over 162 games (since they will play each other a significant number of times, for one thing). .380 is 100 losses.
Everyone is citing precedent with the Brewers and the Tigers and the '78 Red Sox and whomever else, and they're saying things like, if this hot streak had happened in July, it'd be no great shakes. But the former is meaningless and the latter is silly.
The Brewers and the Tigers and the '78 Red Sox have no bearing on the present. And while a .600 ballclub has a roughly 18% chance of winning 17 out of 19 at some point in a 162-game regular season, they have only a 0.5% chance of winning 17 of their first 19, all else being equal. So, once every 200 seasons. At .600.
And you're underestimating the Blue Jays. That roster is either good or great, depending on Hernández, and they've yet to receive any meaningful contribution from Guerrero, Bichette, Alford, or until yesterday Gurriel.
The Brewers and the Tigers and the '78 Red Sox have no bearing on the present. And while a .600 ballclub has a roughly 18% chance of winning 17 out of 19 at some point in a 162-game regular season, they have only a 0.5% chance of winning 17 of their first 19, all else being equal. So, once every 200 seasons. At .600.
And you're underestimating the Blue Jays. That roster is either good or great, depending on Hernández, and they've yet to receive any meaningful contribution from Guerrero, Bichette, Alford, or until yesterday Gurriel.
Last edited:
There are certainly precedents for this being a historic season and precedents for it being a disappointing one. All I know is that it's a great amount of fun right now! I was surprised to see today that the Sox' strength of schedule so far is actually over .500 (.504 currently). The Jays' SoS sits at .418 and the Yankees' at .526 by comparison. I'm also quite amused that the Sox' pythag predicts a record of 16-3, so it's not like it's taken great situational karma to get to the current record either (despite all those 1 run wins early on).
My mistake. I was only looking at the lead against the 2nd place team not the Yankees.
That was the easiest list I could find this morning. However, I realized that you can actually find 100 loss teams in BRef so I looked at that. There have been 47 100+ loss teams since 1975 and there have been multiple years with 2 teams with 100+ losses.
There has only been 2 years with more than 2 teams with 100+ losses: 1985 with 3 and 2002 with 4.
So perhaps this season is more in line with 2002 - which had four 100 loss teams (TB, DET, and MIL all lost 106 games and KC lost 100; note also CHI lost 95 games and SD lost 96). In that season, the MFYs and OAK both won 103 games; ATL won 101 games, and the other three division winners won 98 (ARI), 97 (STL), and 94 (MIN) games. Interesting that year BOS won 93 games but had a pythag of 100.
So if this ends up like 2002, I wouldn't be surprised to see some season win totals fall.
Was this the 2010 ALCS? What's the big guy saying?
Still gets me. Every time I see it.
Last edited:
How many teams are really actively tanking right now? Baltimore and Tampa have bad records, but it seems to me they're trying. When Baltimore trades away Machado and Bundy, I'll believe they're tanking. The White Sox appear to be tanking. Miami is tanking, but we don't get to play them any more. KC might be tanking, or they might just be bad. We don't get to play the Reds, the only other tanking NL team.
The wierd thing about 2002 was they had barely over a.500 record at Fenway, but a great road record. The Red Sox, very unRed Sox like. Go figure. Wierd year. 93 wins which would would get you a wild card normally but the Angels won 99.
"Fuck you, fuck you Cruz" to Nelson Cruz. That really is one of the all-timer gifs.
That's what I thought, lol. Nelson and the Rangers got the last laugh. And if I'm not mistaken the Yanks thought they had Cliff Lee signed, sealed and delivered for the next year but since the fans were so abusive to his wife in Yankee Stadium she told him screw New York @ the Yankees and he went back to the Phillies.
Last edited:
Earl was wrong. Somebody just passed somebody else on the basepath recently, turning a home run into a single. Apologies for not remembering the team and players.
I know it’s fun to bash the Yankees and NY generally (for me too) but the truth is much more basic: Lee’s son had been diagnosed with leukemia and while he was in remission by 2010, the family had grown comfortable with and had great trust in his team of doctors at Children’s Hospital in Philly.
My recollection is that while there were a lot of factors to consider and I’m sure the Lee family was not thrilled with NY, living in close proximity to CHOP was the deciding factor.
Alex Speier hypothesizes on the grannies:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/04/24/here-why-red-sox-have-been-productive-with-bases-loaded/RVyvV5yUN2vShRi16shbRO/story.html
Well, winning 17 of 19, then losing 17 of 19 would be some sort of record. Lol.
Since our “hot” start at 17-2
We have gone 11-11 in our next 22:
Stats for our last 22 games..
Hitting: .243 BA/.297 OBP/.417 SLG/.714 OPS/200 Strikeouts
Pitching:
4.47 ERA/99ER/32HR/62BB in 199.1 IP
Stats for our first 21 games:
Hitting: .293 BA/.361 OBP/.497 SLG/.858 OPS/126 Strikeouts
Pitching:
2.69 ERA/53ER/10HR/58BB in 177 IP
We have gone 11-11 in our next 22:
Stats for our last 22 games..
Hitting: .243 BA/.297 OBP/.417 SLG/.714 OPS/200 Strikeouts
Pitching:
4.47 ERA/99ER/32HR/62BB in 199.1 IP
Stats for our first 21 games:
Hitting: .293 BA/.361 OBP/.497 SLG/.858 OPS/126 Strikeouts
Pitching:
2.69 ERA/53ER/10HR/58BB in 177 IP
